DECISION The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen in brief are as follows
2. The petitioner was appointed in November, 1964 as Ticket Collector Grade-I and his case is that he was entitled to seniority as TCR from 4-1-1965 and not from 5-6-1968 as was provisionally accorded in the Seniority List published on 31-1-1988. He had made representation on 12-2-1988 and the dame remain unheeded for long and it was after reminders had been sent that he heard on 24-3-1990 that his case was already disposed of on 13-8-1988. As the same had not been received earlier and he learnt about the same only on 24-3-1990, he had sent the grievance notice to the respondent on 9-5-1990 and later filed the grievance petition before the Labour Court on 2- 7-1990.
3. The petition came to be resisted and it was contended that apart from being not maintainable, it was also time-barred.
4. The petitioner was his own witness and Usman Khan appeared on behalf of the respondents.
5. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was a civil servant and therefore the petition was not maintainable and also maintained that his seniority had been properly fixed. It, therefore, dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
6. The petition had remained pending for a number of years because of adjournment applications.
When the matter came up for hearing on 27-1-1994 again there were applications from both the sides. Because of inordinate delay, I had declined to adjourn and the matter was kept for orders with the direction that the parties could file their arguments within a week. There has been no response from the counsel for either party.
7. The learned Presiding Officer on the basis of the unpublished decision of the Supreme Court which is not on the record, wherein it had been laid that members of staff employed in the administrative office of Pakistan Railways or Administrative Officers, were civil servants, will not be applicable, There is no evidence for the determination of the status in the present case. A Ticket Collector normally remains on the track. Any was he has nothing to do with the Administration.
8. However the finding in regard to the correctness of the seniority list calls for no interference. He had been sent for his Course at Walton Training School rather late because his appointment had come on ad hoc basis and as stated by Sain Dad he was not eligible for the said Course till the regularization of his employment. Re has also stated that he was selected on 29-4-1968 and it was thereupon that his seniority was fixed.
9. There is nothing more than the word of the appellant in support of his case. Nothing could be had from the cross-examination of Sain Dad in his favour. Even the appointment order has not been produced by the appellant. According to him it was with the Department and a copy was not given to him which is rather strange in the extreme. There is also nothing to show that ad hoc appointees were sent to the Board. It had been asserted by Sain Dad that only regular Ticket Collectors were eligible.
10. In the circumstances no interference is called for. I will, therefore, up--hold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.